We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
help needed against bully privet pnc.

steve1time
Posts: 8 Forumite
My dad was parked at netto disabled spot as he's gettin on a bit he thought the disabled badge entitled him to park free in the disabled spot needless to say he got a pcn on 18/10/10 following the posts and what john said i ignored it today a letter from a trethowans solicitors which was not singed by a person either.they say they intend to take my dad to court unless he coughs up £50. I wanna fight these thugs,
Just a thought shouldn't the company who issued the ticked contacted me before passing this on to the big shots? As instructed i have wrote this letter.
I conditionally accept to compensate you and not entering a controversy or dis-honer for ACTUAL LOSS. As parking was £1.50/hour, you have not suffered a loss of £50 upon PROOF OF CLAIM you suffered a loss of the said £50.
You are probably aware Private Parking Companies rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance there is no loss amounting to £50, as the parking is free. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that you cannot charge a penalty for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss.
Additionally, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 and related Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083, in particular at section 5 states that unfair terms are:
(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
There is also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that states in section 4 that:
(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(2) This section applies whether the liability in question –
(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;
(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.
Clearly the charging of £50 is wholly unreasonable.
We have no intention of wasting any more time corresponding with you. If you continue to pursue the matter this will constitute an offence under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.
Due to the way in which you have harassed me in this matter, as well as the supposedly official nature of your alleged “PCN” I am considering reporting the matter to the police pursuant to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, that states, it is an offence to coerce another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due to under contract if he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not
Again, as this is a breach of contract claim I am only liable to compensate you for ACTUAL LOSS. As parking was hours , you have not suffered a loss of £50 .
I look forward to your written confirmation that the ticket has been withdrawn.
Any further correspondence must be signed by a person as im sure you know without that
Is this the correct way to approach these thugs?
Just a thought shouldn't the company who issued the ticked contacted me before passing this on to the big shots? As instructed i have wrote this letter.
I conditionally accept to compensate you and not entering a controversy or dis-honer for ACTUAL LOSS. As parking was £1.50/hour, you have not suffered a loss of £50 upon PROOF OF CLAIM you suffered a loss of the said £50.
You are probably aware Private Parking Companies rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance there is no loss amounting to £50, as the parking is free. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that you cannot charge a penalty for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss.
Additionally, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 and related Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083, in particular at section 5 states that unfair terms are:
(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
There is also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that states in section 4 that:
(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(2) This section applies whether the liability in question –
(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;
(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.
Clearly the charging of £50 is wholly unreasonable.
We have no intention of wasting any more time corresponding with you. If you continue to pursue the matter this will constitute an offence under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.
Due to the way in which you have harassed me in this matter, as well as the supposedly official nature of your alleged “PCN” I am considering reporting the matter to the police pursuant to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, that states, it is an offence to coerce another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due to under contract if he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not
Again, as this is a breach of contract claim I am only liable to compensate you for ACTUAL LOSS. As parking was hours , you have not suffered a loss of £50 .
I look forward to your written confirmation that the ticket has been withdrawn.
Any further correspondence must be signed by a person as im sure you know without that
Is this the correct way to approach these thugs?
0
Comments
-
Is it true that they can only recover the original amount for the rent on the space for the period i was there?0
-
The correct way to do it is just to ignore these thugs.
Completely ignore them.make the most of it, we are only here for the weekend.
and we will never, ever return.0 -
Do not send ANY letter, certainly not one that 'accepts' or 'offers' anything! Where on earth did you find that letter?
Just ignore them, it's easy.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Do not send ANY letter, certainly not one that 'accepts' or 'offers' anything! Where on earth did you find that letter?
Just ignore them, it's easy.
You cant just ignore them as this creates dis honer by non compliance.Its best to conditionally accept and just pay them the original parking fee and staying out of a controversy. Apparently by telling them this they cannot take it to a court and then send bailiffs. Read the original post.0 -
steve1time wrote: »You cant just ignore them as this creates dis honer by non compliance.Its best to conditionally accept and just pay them the original parking fee and staying out of a controversy. Apparently by telling them this they cannot take it to a court and then send bailiffs.
Who told you that?
Ignore them. Nothing will happen.0 -
steve1time wrote: »You cant just ignore them as this creates dis honer by non compliance.Its best to conditionally accept and just pay them the original parking fee and staying out of a controversy. Apparently by telling them this they cannot take it to a court and then send bailiffs. Read the original post.
Where did you read that rubbish? It's codswallop! :rotfl::rotfl:
You CAN ignore them, you MUST ignore them. It's not difficult, I have done it, as have others on here!
Watchdog says ignore and make any private parking ticket into a paper aeroplane.
Guardian Letters says you are better off ignoring.
I think that advice is clear enough.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Altrenatively, OP, send me the £50, and give the PPC my name and address.0
-
Coupon-mad wrote: »Where did you read that rubbish? It's codswallop! :rotfl::rotfl:
You CAN ignore them, you MUST ignore them. It's not even difficult, I have done it!
you cannot ignore it read black dictionary of law.i will post links if you want.its called a joinder by non compliance0 -
steve1time wrote: »You cant just ignore them as this creates dis honer by non compliance.Its best to conditionally accept and just pay them the original parking fee and staying out of a controversy. Apparently by telling them this they cannot take it to a court and then send bailiffs. Read the original post.
Read the 1000's other threads on similar topics and ignore them. You've asked for advice, you've been given it...now follow it!0 -
Is that the USA Black's Law Dictionary?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards